| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tim Holloway <mtsinc(at)southeast(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Industrial-Strength Logging |
| Date: | 2000-06-02 23:48:33 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0006021547090.406-100000@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Can someone tell me what happened to this?
Well, as far as I followed along we at first thought that using syslog for
logging would be fine. Then we found out that syslog is really quite
unusable. Now that is fixed, but only in a work-around kind of
fashion. Meanwhile someone came up with the idea of abducting rotatelogs
from Apache, which seems like an interesting thing to do in any case. At
the same time, it turned out that we already have a fair amount of logging
information available, you just need to turn it on.
The problems people saw with this approach in particular are the separate
logging process, the pretty deep surgery in the system in general, and the
use of non-standard error or event codes. It seems that this project went
from requirements definition to implementation without anyone knowing what
happened in between.
Yeah, let's have another logging discussion... :)
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Giles Lean | 2000-06-03 12:59:34 | Re: Industrial-Strength Logging |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-06-01 18:41:36 | Re: Lock |